Homosexuals

Abstract

At the outset, committee members whimsically took to calling homosexuals and prostitutes ‘Huntleys’ and ‘Palmers’, after the brand of biscuits. This practice, apparently to save the blushes of the female stenographers, was relatively shortlived; the graphic nature of the witness statements would have made it redundant. But in the early months the committee had to decide whether it wanted to interview any of these Huntleys, in full committee or smaller gatherings, and—if so—what type of Huntley.¹ The correspondence between Wolfenden and the secretary, Conwy Roberts, indicates a willingness to entertain the idea but no great enthusiasm. A number of Huntleys wrote offering their services; correspondence and informal meetings took place.² Some could be easily dismissed—there was no evidence that one R. Devereux Shirley, for example, was qualified to ‘represent the beliefs and needs of the big majority of the 500,000 homosexuals in Great Britain’³—while others were more promising. Roberts thought that ‘an invert in a responsible University post’ who came to see him was just the ‘very decent sort of chap’ who would be suitable: unlike many with his ‘particular disability’ he had no axe to grind and was ‘the personification, in fact, of the D. P. P.’s “genuine” homosexual!’⁴ Nevertheless, when it came time to organize some full interviews with homosexuals in the summer of 1955, Wolfenden’s priorities lay with the other scheduled witnesses; the homosexuals could be offered whatever time might be left over. Roberts even suggested that, ‘If the idea is merely to let the Committee see what a few Huntleys look and behave like, then the proceedings could be informally conducted over a cup of tea.’ Wolfenden demurred at this: since two of the men were rather distinguished blokes, if the committee were going to put itself to the trouble of seeing them at all, it ought to be reasonably thorough about it.⁵